Category Archives: State news

Any chance Texas can restore sanity and reinstate helmet law?

I chatted the other day with a former colleague about someone else we both know, a woman whose son was grievously injured in a motorcycle wreck about a decade ago.

The young man was speeding along a street in Amarillo when he crashed his motorcycle. He wasn’t wearing a helmet. The young man suffered permanent brain damage.

The chat with my friend spurred a thought in my own brain: What was the Texas Legislature thinking in 1997 when it repealed the state’s mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists? I sniffed around a found an article that talked about how motorcycle wreck-related deaths have increased dramatically since the Legislature gave cyclists the option of endangering themselves.

Republicans took control of the Legislature and in 1997 took over as the majority party. The “limited government” crowd then saw fit to repeal a law that I always thought was a reasonable requirement for anyone who sat astride a “crotch rocket.” The motorcycle law is no more onerous that requiring every passenger in a car to buckle up for safety with a seat restraint.

Legislators saw the helmet law differently, I reckon. They made a mistake, in my humble view.

To be fair, children still must wear helmets if they’re riding a motorcycle with Mommy or Daddy.

What’s more, the state now requires motorcycle owners to have an accident insurance policy worth at least $10,000. That’s fine, I guess, except that one can go through 10 grand in about 10 minutes when you check into a hospital with a traumatic brain injury.

As we get through this coronavirus pandemic and the next Legislature convenes in January, I am somewhat hopeful that Democrats might retake control of at least the House of Representatives. Maybe a House chamber controlled by Democrats might seek to restore some sanity to our roads and highways by bringing back a helmet law. I know it still has to go through the Texas Senate and it still needs the signature of a Republican governor, Greg Abbott.

My hope does spring eternal.

Texas AG: Gun shops are an ‘essential’ business … yikes!

I suppose you can chalk this one up as an “only in Texas” kind of thing.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has determined that gun shops are an “essential business” and therefore can remain open while other businesses are being shuttered during the coronavirus pandemic.

There is something kind of weird about Paxton’s decision, which countermands a statement issued by the mayor of Lubbock, who determined that gun shops in the West Texas city are “non-essential” and should close during this time of crisis.

How do we define essential? The way I define the term, that would include businesses that sell food, medicine, various household cleaning supplies.

But … guns? Seriously? Ken Paxton thinks that guns count as something Texans need to purchase.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott hasn’t issued a stay-at-home order for all Texans. He has left that decision up to local governments, some of which have been proactive; others have been, well, not so much.

State Rep. Dustin Burrows, a Lubbock Republican, asked Paxton for a ruling after the mayor made his determination. I guess Burrows got what he sought.

I just find Paxton’s decision to be peculiar … although not the least bit surprising. Gotta have them guns at the ready, right? I mean, we just don’t have enough of ’em out there already.

Lt. Gov. Patrick ought to eat those idiotic words

This editorial cartoon is one of many that have blasted to smithereens the remarks from Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who had the boorish bad taste to say that old folks ought to sacrifice themselves to the coronavirus to save the nation’s economy.

He’s taken his share of criticism. I have joined those who suggest that Dan Patrick’s butter has slipped off his noodles. He hasn’t responded to me, nor do I expect this goofball to fire back at little ol’ me.

However, I continued to be appalled that the state’s second-ranking elected official — and arguably Texas’ most powerful politician, as the presiding officer of the Texas Senate — would even think such a thing, let alone say it aloud.

Yet this clown said that elderly folks shouldn’t seek aid if the virus strikes them down. Dan Patrick’s alleged rationale? The economy needs to be Priority No. 1 over the care for aged Americans.

This guy disgusts me at virtually the same level as the president of the United States, Donald John Trump.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2020/03/not-afraid-to-die-for-the-economy/

I’m even more ashamed of Patrick now than I was when I posted this blog item.

Sickening.

Not afraid to die for the economy?

Dan Patrick does not make me proud. On the contrary, the Texas lieutenant governor makes me ashamed that most Texans have elected and re-elected this bozo to what arguably is the most powerful office in Texas government.

He presides over the Texas Senate. He wields his power with maximum confidence. He can punish senators who don’t toe the line, such as what he did prior to the 2019 Legislature when he stripped state Sen. Kel Seliger of Amarillo of key committee assignments. For what reason? Because Seliger was the lone Republican senator to decline to sign a letter endorsing Patrick for re-election in 2018.

Now Patrick has popped off, saying that old folks are willing to die from the coronavirus if it means the nation’s economy gets jump-started. What has this clown been swilling?

Patrick apparently thinks that old folks are expendable. As a 70-year-old Texas resident, I deeply, profoundly and categorically resent and reject that idiocy.

Moreover, the 69-year-old Patrick also seems to be willing to take one for the team.

According to NBC News: Patrick, who said he will turn 70 next week, said that he did not fear COVID-19, but feared that stay-at-home orders and economic upheaval would destroy the American way of life.

Well, I’ll just offer this: His fear of “stay-at-home orders” is so much horsesh**. 

Thanks a lot, Dan Patrick. This great state of ours deserves much better than what we are getting from you.

Moron.

Why must we have runoff elections at all?

A friend and I were chatting today about the upcoming runoff election in Texas House District 2 between Rep. Dan Flynn and challenger Bryan Slaton.

Flynn finished first in the Republican Party primary on March 3; but he didn’t get 50 percent plus one vote, which would have allowed him to win the party nomination without a runoff election. Slaton finished second, so he and Flynn will run against each other in May.

My friend wants to know: Why do we even need a runoff election? He said he would support ending this practice, which I mentioned to him is essentially a “Southern thing,” given that states in the South historically have required primary winners to win an outright majority, even in multi-candidate fields.

He poses a good question.

The House District 2 runoff will produce a hideously abysmal voter turnout. That’s the way it goes with these extended primary contests. The only folks who tend to vote in runoffs are the hyper-dedicated, the zealots. The rest of the electorate usually can’t find the time, let alone the interest, to vote in runoff elections.

We also have at least one important statewide race to decide in the runoff: two Democrats are running for the U.S. Senate seat, M.J. Hegar and Royce West.

Why, indeed, do we need to do this? These elections cost us all a good bit of money, but too damn few of us ever take part. A simple plurality during the primary ought to suffice.

I mean, c’mon … presidents of the United States are elected without ever gaining a majority of votes.

Speaker Bonnen comes clean … but he’s still a goner

Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen messed up royally when he agreed to meet with a far-right-wing political activist and then offered to toss 10 of his fellow legislative Republicans over the proverbial cliff.

He finally has fessed up to the mess he created. It’s just that it is way too late to do him any good. Bonnen took many hits from his Texas Legislature colleagues and then decided he wouldn’t seek re-election from his Angleton House district after serving just a single legislative term as the Man of the House.

Why speak out now? Who knows? At some level, though, I do care.

Bonnen conspired with Michael Quinn Sullivan, the head of that far-right outfit Empower Texans. He committed a terrible mistake by agreeing to meet with Sullivan in the first place. You see, Sullivan recorded the meeting secretly, then sprang the trap into which he had snared Bonnen in the summer of 2019. He revealed what Bonnen had done; Bonnen at first denied it; then Sullivan released the recording and, by golly, he was right.

Bonnen had given Sullivan the names of 10 legislators. He also offered to provide media credentials to Empower Texans, enabling the PAC direct access to House members on the House floor when the Legislature was in session. Very, very bad call, Mr. Speaker.

Bonnen spoke recently to the Dallas Morning News in which he apologized to his House colleagues and admitted to turning his career into so much road kill.

I am hoping for all I’m worth that the next speaker of the Texas House of Representatives will learn from Bonnen’s mess up … and trust Michael Quinn Sullivan only as far as he can toss him.

Gov. Abbott to the public: No need to hoard household supplies

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott this morning went on the air to make a statewide disaster declaration in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

He issued a number of directives and said that state medical providers are going to ensure that testing equipment is available to those who need to be checked for the virus. It’s all worthwhile and needed under the current circumstance that has created a sense of international near-panic.

But …

The governor also urged us to avoid hoarding household items. My wife and I went to our neighborhood supermarket this morning. We glanced down the aisle where they peddle toilet tissue and paper towels. We saw empty shelf space. It was all gone! All of it!

So, I hope that the governor’s words do not fall on deaf ears all across Texas.

Do not seek to bring back straight-ticket voting!

I will get straight to the point with this blog post.

South Texas Democrats have rocks in their noggins if they intend to argue that the elimination of straight-ticket, partisan voting is unconstitutional and that it discriminates against minority voters.

Readers of High Plains Blogger know that I detest straight-ticket voting. The Texas Legislature finally — as in finally — saw the light in 2017 and eliminated the provision that allows voters to walk into the polling booth and punch straight “Democrat” or straight “Republican.” Wham! That’s it! Then you get to leave.

A lawsuit filed in Webb County by the Texas Democratic Party and Webb County Democrats seeks to bring the practice back. They didn’t like the long lines that slowed the voting process to a crawl in many urban areas. Many voters, namely African-Americans and Latinos, stood in line for as long as eight or nine hours waiting to vote.

How come? I guess because voters ahead of them were taking the time to examine the ballots carefully before casting their votes.

What is wrong with that? Nothing, I tell ya!

I have argued for years that if Texans want to vote straight ticket, then they should be allowed to do so only after they examine each ballot entry. I also have argued that straight-ticket voting has resulted in qualified office seekers and incumbents losing their election or re-election efforts simply because they belong to the “wrong” political party. In recent years it’s been Democrats who suffer the most. In earlier times, Republicans suffered the same fate.

Allowing straight-ticket voting in Texas, in my mind, contributes to the continued dumbing down of the electorate.

Texas Republicans who argued for a change in the law had it right when they argued that disallowing straight-ticket voting would produce a more enlightened voting public.

I happen to agree with that logic. The current system doesn’t require voters to study the issues and the candidates. It just gives them more incentive to do so. If they want to vote for every candidate of a single party, then they are still allowed to do so.

That is where the unconstitutionality argument breaks down for me.

Therefore, South Texas Democrats do have rocks in their heads.

Take it from this fellow: Texas judicial election system stinks

There can be no diplomatic, or judicious way to say this.

The system we use in Texas to elect our judges stinks to high heaven … and beyond. It is filled with the stench of rotten money.

There. Now that we’ve laid that all out, I now shall offer some evidence. It comes from a marvelous Texas Tribune article about a fellow I don’t know well, but someone about whom I have known for many years.

Salem Abraham lives in Canadian, which I call “the pretty part of the Texas Panhandle.” He earned a fortune trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He knows how to play numerical probabilities.

As the Tribune reports, Abraham knows as well as anyone in Texas that the more you donate to Texas judicial candidates the better your chances of winning a judicial verdict/settlement in their court.

Texas is one of six states that elect judges on partisan ballots. The Tribune notes, too, that many judges owe their campaign donations to “the white-shoe lawyers and law firms who appear before them.”

The Tribune also reports that every living former Texas Supreme Court chief justice has called for reforming the system. To no avail. Their pleas have fallen into the abyss of indifference to — at a bare minimum — the appearance of impropriety.

Abraham notes in the article that the more money that pours in the more likely one will get a favorable ruling from the court.

Pass the collection plate?

This is no way to adjudicate fairly, impartially and without bias.

Being the first female for an office isn’t a ‘selfish’ motive

A Houston appellate court judge running for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court has come up with one of the more, um, creative epithets to hurl at a primary opponent.

Jerry Zimmerer is running in the Democratic primary for the SCOTEX chief justice spot. His opponent, Amy Clark Meachum, wants to become the first woman ever elected to the chief justice on the state’s highest civil appellate court.

Zimmerer calls Meachum “selfish” because she wants to the first female. Yep, that’s what he says. It’s selfish of her to break through a barrier that has lasted too long as it is.

He says he wants the “best candidate to win.” Hey, so does Meachum. She believes she’s the better candidate for the office. She believes she’s better than Zimmerer … and not because she’s a woman and he’s a man.

They both are judges. Meachum was elected to the trial court in Travis County in 2011; Zimmerer was elected in Harris County in 2018.

So, let them fight it out over who is better qualified.

The idea that one of them wants to be the first woman ever elected to an all-male political stronghold is no reason to vote against her.

I am now leaning toward Amy Clark Meachum when the time comes to cast a vote.

So there …